Ruth

RUTH. - A virtuous Moabite woman, wife of Boaz, ancestress of David (Mt. 3, 3-6), from the time of the Judges (Ruth 1, 1), whose story is the subject of the book of the same name.

R., a widow without offspring, does not abandon her mother-in-law Naomi who, having lost her husband (Elimelech) and sons, returns to her homeland (ibid. 1). In Bethlehem, for their sustenance, R. goes to glean, and gains the esteem of Boaz, a relative of Elimelech (ibid. 2). Boaz welcomes the invitation to marry R., according to the custom of the levirate (ibid. 3). Having obtained the renunciation of a relative who had the right of precedence, Boaz marries R.; from their son Obed will be born Jesse, father of David, progenitor of the Messiah (ibid. 4). "The style, simple and limpid, the grace of the narrative, the vivid portrayal of characters and customs place R. among the best models of narrative prose that the Old Testament presents" (A. Vaccati).

The author, who is unknown, wished to give the genealogy of David (Ruth 4, 18-22) and to show the particular action of Providence in it; as well as to preserve the many precious teachings contained in the vivid and gentle narrative. There is no trace whatsoever of a polemical nature. It was written not before the Reign of David (ibid. 1, 1; 4, 7, 18-22), and, quite probably, not long after. Indeed, there are many traces in R. of the antiquity and historicity of the narrative. Elimelech (ibid. 1, 2) corresponds to Ilimilhu of the texts of el-'Amârnah and Râs Samrah; "Ephrathites" (ibid. 1, 2) of Bethlehem demonstrates that the fusion between the inhabitants of Bethlehem and the Judean clan (Ephrathites) that colonized them had not yet occurred (F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, II, Paris 1938, p. 276). The conception of the territorial god (Ruth 1, 15; 2, 11 ff.) is characteristic of ancient times: cf. Judg. 3, 20; 11, 24; certainly inexplicable after the exile (cf. R. Tamisier [v. bibl.], p. 312). The formula of solemn oath (Ruth 1, 17) is in use only in Samuel-Kings. The extension of the levirate (ibid. 3-4) corresponds to ancient Hittite and Akkadian customs (cf. Gen. 38; C. H. Gordon, Parallèles nouziens aux lois et coutumes de l'Ancien Testament, in Revue biblique, 42 [1935], p. 37); Deut. 25, 5-10 limits this law to the brother-in-law (R. Tamisier, p. 322 ff.). One should also observe the ancient customs presented in Ruth 4, 1-10, 16 ff., together with the editorial note (ibid. 4, 7), and the parallels of Nuzi (cf. R. Tamisier, p. 323 ff.). The fact that David brings his family to safety from the wrath of Saul, with the king of Moab (I Sam. 22, 3), suggests that particular relations existed between David and Moab and adds a strong presumption in favor of the historicity of R. Finally, the idyll and its details find their exact place in the period of the Judges (Judg. 3, 11-30) and in the life of that time (L. Desnoyers, Histoire du peuple hébreu, I, Paris 1922, pp. 87 f., 100 f.).

Some Catholics, in agreement on the integral defense of the historicity of R., nevertheless postpone its composition to after the exile (P. Joüon, J. Goetteaberger: on account of the Aramaisms; R. Tamisier: on account of the theological doctrine, the universality of salvation, the suffering of the just, as in Job). The direction of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, in publishing the R. of P. Joüon (v. bibl.), "believes it its duty to warn that it considers it much more probable that R. was written before the exile. Indeed the comparison of the language of R., which is not very far from the classical Hebrew of the best period (the author himself admits it), is entirely in favor of an ancient date. (cf. the same judgment of S. R. Driver, Ed. König). The morphological peculiarities noted by the author are true archaisms, indications of a remote epoch. The serene tone of the narrative, the air of joy spread over this entire idyll are difficult to reconcile with the painful circumstances that the small Jewish community had to pass through upon returning from exile, until the triumph of the political efforts of Nehemiah. Finally the vividness and freshness of the narrative, the abundance of minute details seem to indicate that the sacred author was not far from the events he was narrating" (P. Joüon, p. 13; A. Schulz). The ideas hinted at by Tamisier are found in the most ancient Hebrew sources and (for the sufferings of the just) also Babylonian ones; nor in R. are they given particular prominence.

The various non-Catholic critical opinions, which postpone R. to after the exile and make of it a pure novella (J. Wellhausen) caused by I Sam. 22, 3 (!); a midhrâf (K. Budde) to inculcate the application of the law of the levirate (Deut. 25, 5-10); or for a polemical position against Deut. 23, 4 f.; or more commonly (A. Bertholet, H. Gratz, A. Kuenen, W. Nowack) to protest against the Ezraite norms on marriages with foreign women (Ezd. 9-10; Neh. 13, 23-29), are without foundation. Besides the Aramaisms, these argue from the proper names Naomi, Mahlon, Chilion, which they considered symbolic; but nothing is more arduous and more fragile than relying on etymologies; R., Orpah, Boaz resist, for example, any explanation.

The mythological attempts of H. Winckler, H. Gunkel remained isolated: rural cult, death and return to life of vegetation, respectively of Tammuz-Ishtar, or of Isis-Osiris; brought together by M. Haller. And the attempt of E. Reuss to explain Ephrathites by Ephraimites (Judg. 2, 5; I Sam. 1, 1), attributing to R. the vindication of the rights of Judah over Ephraim! But Ephrathites certainly indicates here Bethlehem (I Sam. 17, 12; Mc. 5, 1).

In the Hebrew Bible R. stands among the Kethâbhîm ("Writings"); there is no lack of testimonies and indications that its original place was immediately after the book of Judges (Greek version of the Septuagint, Vulgate), to which it was sometimes joined (Origen, In Ps. 1: PG 12, 1084; St. Jerome, Prol. gal.: PL 28, 522 f.; Melito of Sardis: PG 20, 396; Josephus, Contra Apion., 1, 8). In all probability, the displacement derives from the late grouping of the mèghillôth (v.), in which R. stands in second place: it was read at Pentecost, for the vivid description of the barley harvest (Ruth 2-3). The Masoretic text is mediocre; the version of the Septuagint is literal; the Vulgate is elegant but very free.

Francesco Spadafora